| From: | "Cox, Brian" <Brian(dot)Cox(at)ca(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "slow" queries |
| Date: | 2009-03-01 19:21:54 |
| Message-ID: | D181508F0DF4C247B57FDD88B342C110046DC10E@USILMS11.ca.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>Probably because the DROP is trying to acquire exclusive lock on its
>target table, and some other transaction already has a read or write
>lock on that table, and everything else is queuing up behind the DROP.
>It's not a true deadlock that is visible to the database, or else
>Postgres would have failed enough of the transactions to remove the
>deadlock. Rather, what you've got is some very-long-running transaction
>that is still making progress, or else is sitting idle because its
>client is neglecting to close it; and everything else is blocked behind
>that.
This "deadlock" finished after 18h and 48m. As there is only 1 select
on a table with 400 rows and 10 inserts into a separate partition than
the one being dropped, what could possible take 18:48 to do?
I also don't understand why inserts into a separate partition or a select on
an unrelated table should cause any locks on the table being dropped in
the 1st place. I assume that the CREATE VIEW, which started 1 hour
after the DROP, can't possibly be the cause of this "deadlock".
Brian
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-02 01:57:34 | Re: "slow" queries |
| Previous Message | Linos | 2009-03-01 18:52:21 | Re: TCP network cost |